FRANKFORT, Ky.  The Libertarian Party is considering running a candidate in Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, saying GOP nominee Rand Paul  the son of a former Libertarian presidential candidate  has betrayed the party's values.
Party Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said Wednesday that Paul has been a black eye for Libertarians because of stands he's taken on issues, including his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Libertarian Party does not represent every libertarian. The Libertarian Party started off in the 1970s as a radical libertarian political party under the watchful eye of Mr. Libertarian Murray N. Rothbard. In recent years, however, the Libertarian Party has tried to make itself more appealing to the masses by toning down its radical platform and moving more towards conservatism, in the opinion of many libertarians including myself. While we may vote for Libertarian Party candidates, we dont necessarily think the LP is the best representation of libertarianism.

The state chairman of the Libertarians of Kentucky has disavowed statements by the partys vice chair, that suggest the group is considering running a real Libertarian candidate against Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul.

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

Click to expand...

The answer is the left in particular spends WAY too much time and effort smearing libertarians and calling them racists and whatnot ....

One thing I've learned ... when the left is afraid/fears something, they mindlessly attack it with, ignoring facts and logic, and post the same dogma over and over again, and most of the time have no idea what they believe in.

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

Click to expand...

Well we won't know how the Libertarian Party would do on the national stage until the laws that are biased against all third parties are repealed, and since Republicans and Democrats make those laws we probably shouldn't hold our breath for that to happen.

Rand Paul doesn't support any discrimination, he just doesn't believe that the Constitution says that the federal government has the right to tell us who we can permit on our own property.

I would agree that he's not a libertarian, but not for the reason you gave which is completely inaccurate.

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

Click to expand...

The answer is the left in particular spends WAY too much time and effort smearing libertarians and calling them racists and whatnot ....

One thing I've learned ... when the left is afraid/fears something, they mindlessly attack it with, ignoring facts and logic, and post the same dogma over and over again, and most of the time have no idea what they believe in.

Y'all are S-O-O-O programmed by "veeger".

Click to expand...

I don't think that opinion is racist. I just think it is incorrect.

I can see how some people would consider it racist because it is the very same argument used in the sixties to keep Jim Crow laws in place.

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

Click to expand...

Please point to anyplace where Rand said he supports discrimination.

What I think would happen  what Im saying is, is that I dont believe in any discrimination. I dont believe in any private property should discriminate, either. And I wouldnt attend, wouldnt support, wouldnt go to.

Click to expand...

Those are his exact words, how do you tiwist that to say he supporst discrimination?

I guess this answers Dud's question about why Libertarians don't succeed on the national stage. Too wishy-washy and unorganized.

You can believe in property rights and still believe that the constitution disallows the type of discrimination Rand Paul supports.

IMO, he is no real libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't really believe that the constitution is meaningless.

Click to expand...

Please point to anyplace where Rand said he supports discrimination.

What I think would happen  what Im saying is, is that I dont believe in any discrimination. I dont believe in any private property should discriminate, either. And I wouldnt attend, wouldnt support, wouldnt go to.

Click to expand...

Those are his exact words, how do you tiwist that to say he supporst discrimination?

Click to expand...

He supported the notion that a business owner running a business that is open to the public has a right to discriminate.

"I like the Civil Rights Act in a sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains," Paul said in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. There's 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act. One deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that."

Click to expand...

He's incorrect. The constitution doesn't allow it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution doesn't allow the the federal or state governments to make laws that discriminate against people, but private property is private property. You can exclude people based on whatever reason you want from your home, there's no reason it should be any different in a private business.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!